505 F. App'x 45
2d Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege unjust enrichment and NYGBL § 349 against AOL, HuffPo, Huffington, and Lerer for content contributed to HuffPo.
- HuffPo launched in 2005 as a for-profit site; contributors provided content for exposure, not payment.
- In 2011 AOL purchased HuffPo for ~$315 million, with plaintiffs claiming $105 million value from their content.
- Amended Complaint asserted that HuffPo benefited from plaintiffs’ content without compensation or disclosure.
- District Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) on March 30, 2012; plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenge both the dismissal and the prejudice ruling, arguing claims survive and damages exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment claim states a plausible entitlement to restitution | Tasini et al. | HuffPo et al. | Claim fails; no equity basis shown under complaint. |
| Whether NYGBL § 349 claim is consumer-oriented and misleading | Tasini et al. | HuffPo et al. | Claim properly dismissed. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion | Tasini et al. | A previous opportunity to amend sufficed. | No abuse; dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 F.3d 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Beth Israel Med. Ctr. v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc., 448 F.3d 573 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements of unjust enrichment require equity and restitution)
- Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2000) (consumer deception need not be pleaded here)
- Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24, 29 (N.Y. 2000) (NY § 349 elements: consumer-oriented; misleading; injury)
- Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Fin., 620 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2010) (de novo review for Rule 12(b)(6); inferences in plaintiff’s favor)
- Grain Traders, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 160 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissal with prejudice)
- Ashland Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 652 F.3d 333 (2d Cir. 2011) (equity factors weighed in restitution analysis)